Citation Nr: 21031615 Decision Date: 05/24/21 Archive Date: 05/24/21 DOCKET NO. 20-19 186 DATE: May 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from May 1961 to May 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2018 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Board previously remanded this matter in May 2020 and March 2021. The Veteran contends that his bilateral ankle disabilities and bilateral knee disabilities are the result of his active duty service, specifically due to playing basketball for the Air Force. See Oct. 2018 VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits. The Veteran further noted that he did not seek medical help for his ankles and knees, but that he instead treated them using ice. See Nov. 2019 Notice of Disagreement (NOD). He also stated that he was not provided proper gym shoes while serving in Madrid, Spain and Duluth, Minnesota. Id. In October 2020, the Veteran underwent a VA ankle conditions examination in which the examiner diagnosed him with bilateral ankle strain. Ultimately, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's left or right ankle conditions were related to his active duty service. In support of the opinions, the examiner noted that there were no service treatment records available supporting complaints of or treatment for any ankle condition. The examiner also noted that there were no post-discharge records available that indicated ongoing ankle problems. In October 2020, the Veteran also underwent a VA knee and leg conditions examination in which the examiner diagnosed him with bilateral total knee replacement. Ultimately, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not that either the Veteran's left or right knee conditions were related to his active duty service. In support of the opinions, the examiner noted that there were no medical records indicating whether the Veteran developed chronic knee problems due to active service. The examiner further stated that there were no medical or operative reports regarding knee replacement or arthritis of the knee. The Board finds that the opinions are inadequate for adjudication purposes, as the examiner's rationale relies exclusively on the lack of in-service and post-service treatment records, and it does not reflect consideration of the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his ankle and knee sympyomd. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (holding that the absence of contemporaneous medical records does not, in and of itself, render lay testimony not credible); Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007) (holding that a VA opinion was inadequate where the examiner did not comment on the Veteran's report of in-service injury and relied on lack of evidence in service medical records to provide a negative opinion). Accordingly, the issues on appeal must be remanded to agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) so that the Veteran can be afforded new VA examinations. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). On remand, the Veteran should be given the opportunity to identify any outstanding pertinent records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Give the Veteran the opportunity to identify any outstanding pertinent evidence that has not already been associated with the claims file. The AOJ should then attempt to obtain those records if he provides the appropriate authorization. 2. The Veteran should be afforded appropriate VA examinations by someone other than the individual who performed the October 2020 that address whether his bilateral ankle disabilities and bilateral knee disabilities are related to his military service. Any indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished. The entire claims file, to include a complete copy of this REMAND, should be made available to the examiner designated to provide an opinion, and the examination report must include a discussion of the Veteran's documented medical history and assertions. The examiner should offer comments, an opinion, and a supporting rationale that address the following: (a.) Is it at least likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran has a bilateral ankle disability that was incurred in, aggravated by, or is otherwise etiologically related to his active duty service? (b.) Is it at least likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran has a bilateral knee disability that was incurred in, aggravated by, or is otherwise etiologically related to his active duty service? In providing these opinions, the examiner should address the Veteran's contentions that his bilateral ankle and knee disabilities are related to playing basketball during service and a lack of proper footwear during active duty. The examiner should also address the Veteran's statement that he treated both his ankle and knee conditions with ice while in service. See Oct. 2018 Fully Developed Claim; Nov. 2019 NOD. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions. If the examiner chooses to reject his reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so, and his lay statements must not be rejected due solely to an absence of contemporaneous or corroborating medical evidence, although this may be considered together with the other evidence of record. The examiner must provide rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. 3. Thereafter, and after any further development deemed necessary, the issues on appeal should be readjudicated. James Springer Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Watkins, Associate Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.